Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp FRTO: in-order-only "TCP proxy" fragility workaround

From: Dâniel Fraga <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:50:12 -0300

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:32:34 +0300 (EEST)
"Ilpo Järvinen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ok. Though this all opens more questions than answers... :-(, why isn't 
> there any traffic in neither of the tcpdumps then (not in the client's
> nor in the server's).

	Very strange. In this topic, I saw the discussion about some
routers messing with traffic and frto related stuff, right? My server
is behind some routers that I don't know (because it's not me who
controls these routers). So if the problem is with some of these
routers, I'm afraid we can do nothing about that.

> I don't think it was bad at all... :-) I just meant that there wasn't any 
> other visible traffic, which is very very strange because nothing port 995 
> related (or anything else) seems to happen during the nmap... Which 
> network interfaces the server has? Could things get routed through some 
> other iface during the time of trouble (and during the nmap solution), 
> that would explain why it isn't visible in the tcpdump which is for the 
> specific interface.

fraga@teleporto ~$ ip route list
10.1.0.6 dev tun2  proto kernel  scope link  src 10.1.0.5 
10.195.195.1 dev tun1  proto kernel  scope link  src 10.195.195.2 
192.168.102.0/24 via 10.1.0.6 dev tun2 
200.211.201.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src
200.211.201.248 189.38.0.0/16 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src
189.38.18.122 default via 189.38.18.121 dev eth0 

	Well, if that's the problem I'll be very ashamed for wasting
your time. Anyway, eveything should go to eth0 interface, through
189.38.18.121 gateway.

	The eth1 interface (200.211.201.248) is an old interface which
we do not use anymore. So I'm right now deactivating it (I should do
that for a long time ago). Let's see if the problem remains or not
(although I have other servers with multiple interfaces and everything
is fine, since, as far as I understand, what matters is the default
gateway -- I think that there's no reason to Linux send something to
eth1 interface since there's only one default gateway).

	Anyway I'm dropping eth1 interface. I'll wait a few days before
confirming if that's the problem or not.

	Thanks again.

--